REPORT ON GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT 143 PUTMAN AVENUE CITY OF OTTAWA, ONTARIO

Transcription

1 Civil Geotechnical Structural Environmental Hydrogeology 210 Prescott Street, Unit 1 (613) P.O. Box 189 Kemptville, Ontario K0G 1J0 FAX: (613) REPORT ON GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT 143 PUTMAN AVENUE CITY OF OTTAWA, ONTARIO Project # Submitted to: Takyan Consulting and Development Inc. 100 Argyle Avenue, Suite LL300 Ottawa, Ontario K2P 1B6 DISTRIBUTION 4 copies City of Ottawa 2 copies Takyan Consulting and Development Inc. 1 copy Kollaard Associates Inc. May 22, 2015 Professional Engineers Ontario Authorized by the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario to offer professional engineering services.

2 Civil Geotechnical Structural Environmental Hydrogeology 210 Prescott Street, Unit 1 (613) P.O. Box 189 Kemptville, Ontario K0G 1J0 FAX: (613) May 25, Takyan Consulting and Development Inc. 100 Argyle Avenue, Suite LL300 Ottawa, Ontario K2P 1B6 RE: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT 143 PUTMAN AVENUE CITY OF OTTAWA, ONTARIO Dear Sirs: This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation carried out for the above noted proposed mixed use development. The purpose of the investigation was to identify the subsurface conditions at the site based on a limited number of boreholes. Based on the factual information obtained, Kollaard Associates Inc. was to provide guidelines on the geotechnical engineering aspects of the project design; including construction considerations, which could influence design decisions. BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND SITE GEOLOGY Plans are being prepared to construct a six storey mixed use building consisting of eight residential apartment units and with main floor commercial space at in the City of Ottawa, Ontario (see Key Plan, Figure 1). The lot will also have three parking spaces provided. The site has a total of about 0.03 hectares and is currently occupied by a small commercial building with asphaltic surfaced access and a small parking area. The site has about 20 metres of frontage onto Putman Avenue. Professional Engineers Ontario Authorized by the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario to offer professional engineering services.

3 May 25, Preliminary plans indicate that the existing building will be demolished and a new six storey, wooden or steel framed structure with conventional concrete spread footing foundations will be constructed at the site. The proposed building will be serviced by municipal water and sanitary services. The site is located within existing mixed use residential and commercial development. The site is bordered on the south by Putman Avenue followed by commercial development, on the north by commercial development and on the west by Beechwood Avenue followed by commercial development. Currently, the site is occupied by a commercial building (restaurant). Based on a review of the surficial geology map for the site area, it is expected that the site is underlain by deposits of glacial till. Bedrock geology maps indicate that the bedrock underlying the site consists of dark grey almost black limestone of the Eastview Formation. Overburden maps at and near the site indicate the site likely consists of some 1-5 metres of silty sand and glacial till, followed by shale bedrock. PROCEDURE The field work for this investigation was carried out on May 5, 2015 at which time two boreholes, numbered BH1 and BH2 were put down at the site using a track mounted drill rig equipped with a hollow stem auger owned and operated by Marathon Drilling of Greely, Ontario. Sampling of the overburden materials encountered at the borehole location was carried out at regular 0.75 metre depth intervals using a 50 millimetre diameter drive open conventional split spoon sampler in conjunction with standard penetration testing to depths ranging from about 3.5 to 3.7 metres below the existing ground surface (ASTM D-1586 Penetration Test and Split Barrel Sampling of Soils). In situ vane shear testing (ASTM D-2573 Standard Test Method for Field Shear Test in Cohesive Soil) was not carried out as no cohesive materials were encountered at any of the boreholes. The subsurface soil conditions at the boreholes were identified based on visual examination of the samples recovered (ASTM D Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils

4 May 25, (Visual-Manual Procedure), and standard penetration tests as well as laboratory test results on select samples. Groundwater conditions at the borehole was noted at the time of drilling. The boreholes were loosely backfilled with the auger cuttings upon completion of drilling. One soil sample (BH1) was submitted for sieve analysis and moisture content (ASTM C136). A sample of soil obtained from BH1 was also delivered to a chemical laboratory for testing for any indication of potential soil sulphate attack and soil corrosion on buried concrete and steel. The field work was supervised throughout by a member of our engineering staff who located the borehole in the field, logged the borehole and cared for the samples obtained. A description of the subsurface conditions encountered at the boreholes are given in the attached Record of Borehole Sheet. The results of the laboratory testing of the soil samples are presented in the Laboratory Test Results section and Attachment A following the text in this report. The approximate location of the boreholes are shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure 2. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS General As previously indicated, a description of the subsurface conditions encountered at the boreholes are provided in the attached Record of Borehole Sheet following the text of this report. The borehole logs indicate the subsurface conditions at the specific drill location only. Boundaries between zones on the logs are often not distinct, but rather are transitional and have been interpreted. Subsurface conditions at locations other than borehole locations may vary from the conditions encountered at the boreholes. The soil descriptions in this report are based on commonly accepted methods of classification and identification employed in geotechnical practice. Classification was in general completed by visualmanual procedures in accordance with ASTM Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure) with select samples being classified by laboratory testing in accordance with ASTM Classification and identification of soil involves judgement and Kollaard Associates Inc. does not guarantee descriptions as exact, but infers accuracy to the extent that is common in current geotechnical practice.

5 May 25, The groundwater conditions described in this report refer only to those observed at the location and on the date the observations were noted in the report and on the borehole logs. Groundwater conditions may vary seasonally, or may be affected by construction activities on or in the vicinity of the site. The following is a brief overview of the subsurface conditions encountered at the boreholes. Asphaltic Concrete From the ground surface, a thin layer (30 millimetres) of asphaltic concrete was encountered at both boreholes. The asphaltic concrete was fully penetrated. Fill Beneath the asphaltic concrete layer, fill materials were encountered. The fill materials consisted of grey crushed stone mixed with topsoil, sand, gravel, cobbles, brick and concrete. The fill materials were encountered to depths ranging from about 1.8 to 2.1 metres below existing ground surface. The fill materials were fully penetrated at the borehole locations. Topsoil A distinct layer of topsoil material was not encountered at either borehole location as it was observed to be mixed with the fill materials to depths ranging from about 1.8 to 2.1 metres below the existing ground surface. The material was classified as topsoil based on the colour and the presence of organic materials. The identification of the topsoil layer is for geotechnical purposes only and does not constitute a statement as to the suitability of this layer for cultivation and sustainable plant growth. Glacial Till Glacial till was encountered beneath the fill materials at BH1. The glacial till consisted of gravel and cobbles, in a matrix of grey brown sand, with a trace of clay. The results of standard penetration

6 May 25, testing carried out in the glacial till material, range from 46 to 75 blows per 0.3 metres with an average value of 61 blows per 0.3 metres, indicating a dense to very dense state of packing. All of the boreholes encountered refusal to further advancement of the standard penetration split spoon on either large boulders or bedrock at depths of 4.27 metres and 3.50 metres below the existing ground surface for boreholes BH1 and BH2, respectively. One soil sample of glacial till (BH1-SS to 2.88m) was submitted to Stantec for sieve analysis and moisture testing (ASTM C136). The results of the sieve analysis testing indicated that the sample consists of about 38.6 percent gravel with 49.5 percent sand and 11.9 percent silt and clay size particles. The water content of the sample was 4.7 percent. The results are located in Attachment A. Bedrock Both boreholes were terminated on the surface of bedrock or large boulders with practical refusal at depths ranging from approximately 3.50 to 3.7 metres below the existing ground surface level. A visual assessment of the sample recovery from BH1 indicated that the bedrock is dark grey to black shale. Groundwater Groundwater seepage was observed within BH1 at about 2.0 metres below the existing ground surface at the time of drilling. It should be noted that the groundwater levels may be higher during wet periods of the year such as the early spring.

7 May 25, Corrosivity on Reinforcement and Sulphate Attack on Portland Cement The results of the laboratory testing of a soil sample for submitted for chemistry testing related to corrosivity is summarized in the following table. Item Threshold of Concern Test Result Comment Chlorides (Cl) Cl > 0.04 % Negligible ph 5.0 < ph 8.3 Neutral/Slightly Basic Negligible concern Resistivity R < 1500 ohm-cm 3850 Corrosive Sulphates (SO 4 ) SO 4 > 0.1% 0.02 Negligible concern The chemical sulphate content analyses for the representative soil sample tested indicates a sulphate concentration of 30 ug/g or % in soil. The results were compared with Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Standards A23.1 for sulphate attack potential on concrete structures and posses a "negligible" risk for sulphate attack on concrete materials and accordingly, conventional GU or MS Portland cement may be used in the construction of the proposed concrete elements. The ph value for the soil sample was reported to be at 8.3, indicating a durable condition against corrosion. This value was evaluated using Table 2 of Building Research Establishment (BRE) Digest 362 (July 1991).The ph is greater than 5.5 indicating the concrete will not be exposed to attack from acids. The chloride content of the sample was also compared with the threshold level and present negligible concrete corrosion potential. Soil resistivity was found to be 3.85 ohm-m for the sample analyzed. Consideration to increasing the specified strength and/or adding air entrainment into any reinforced concrete in contact with the soil should be given. Special protection is required for reinforcement steel within the concrete walls.

8 May 25, PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT BUILDING FOUNDATIONS General This section of the report provides engineering guidelines on the geotechnical design aspects of the project based on our interpretation of the information from the test holes and the project requirements. It is stressed that the information in the following sections is provided for the guidance of the designers and is intended for this project only. Contractors bidding on or undertaking the works should examine the factual results of the investigation, satisfy themselves as to the adequacy of the information for construction, and make their own interpretation of the factual data as it affects their construction techniques, schedule, safety and equipment capabilities. The professional services for this project include only the geotechnical aspects of the subsurface conditions at this site. The presence or implications of possible surface and/or subsurface contamination resulting from previous uses or activities at this site or adjacent properties, and/or resulting from the introduction onto the site of materials from offsite sources are outside the terms of reference for this report. Foundations for Proposed Mixed Use Building With the exception of any surficial fill and topsoil, the subsurface conditions encountered at the boreholes advanced during the investigation are suitable for the support of the proposed mixed use building on conventional spread footing foundations. The excavations for the foundations should be taken down through any surficial fill, topsoil or otherwise deleterious material to expose the native, undisturbed glacial till and/or bedrock. The subgrade surface should then be inspected and approved by geotechnical personnel. The excavations within the glacial till and/or on the surface of bedrock above the groundwater level should not present any serious constraints. The allowable bearing pressure for any footings depends on the depth of the footings below original ground surface, the width of the footings, and the height above the original ground surface of any landscape grade raise adjacent to the dwelling foundation.

9 May 25, A review of the proposed grading plan for the site prepared by Kollaard Associates Inc. indicates that the proposed footings will be founded at an elevation of metres. The existing grade at the site ranges between about 56.2 to 56.6 metres. As such the proposed footings will bear at about 2.2 to 2.7 metres below the existing ground surface. Conventional Concrete Spread Footing Foundation For any proposed below grade basement, strip footings, a minimum 0.5 metres in width bearing on the native undisturbed glacial till or on engineered fill at a maximum founding depth of about 2.7 metres below the existing ground surface may be designed using maximum allowable bearing pressure and resistances as follows: Bearing Surface Dense Glacial Till or Engineered Fill Bearing on Glacial Till Engineered Fill Bearing on Clean Bedrock or Clean Bedrock Clean Surface Sounded Bedrock Footing Type Strip and Pad Strip and Pad Strip and Pad Maximum Footing Width (m) Allowable Bearing Pressure SLS design (kpa) Factored Ultimate bearing Resistance ULS design (kpa) N/A N/A N/A Note: 1. There is no maximum allowable landscape grade raise associated adjacent to the proposed foundation when the foundation is founded on either dense glacial till / engineered fill bearing on glacial till/bedrock or bedrock. 2. The bedrock may be either shale bedrock or limestone bedrock. 3. A clean, surface-sounded bedrock bearing surface should be free of loose materials and have no near surface seams, voids, fissures or open joints which can be detected from surface sounding with a rock hammer.

10 May 25, Provided that any loose and/or disturbed soil is removed from the bearing surfaces prior to pouring concrete, the total and differential settlement of the footings should be less than 20 millimetres. It is noted that should the foundation bear on glacial till and on bedrock, it can be assumed any settlement of the foundation in the glacial till will be differential with respect to the portion of the foundation bearing on the bedrock. Any fill required to raise the footings for the proposed building to founding level should consist of imported granular material (engineered fill). The engineered fill should consist of granular material meeting Ontario Provincial Standards Specifications (OPSS) requirements for Granular A or Granular B Type II and should be compacted in maximum 300 millimetre thick loose lifts to at least 100 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density. It is considered that the engineered fill should be compacted using dynamic compaction with a large diameter vibratory steel drum roller or diesel plate compactor. If a diesel plate compactor is used, the lift thickness may need to be restricted to less than 300 mm to achieve proper compaction. Compaction should be verified by a suitable field compaction test method. To allow the spread of load beneath the footings, the engineered fill should extend down and out from the edges of the footing at 1 horizontal to 1 vertical, or flatter. The excavations for the proposed building should be sized to accommodate this fill placement. Currently, OPSS documents allow recycled asphaltic concrete to be used in Granular A and Granular B Type II materials. Since the source of recycled material cannot be determined, it is suggested that any granular materials used below the founding level be composed of virgin materials only. If fill, deleterious materials and/or disturbed subgrade soils are encountered below the proposed founding level, the fill, deleterious material and or disturbed subgrade soils should be removed and replaced with compacted granular material (engineered fill). The native glacial till soils at this site will be sensitive to disturbance from construction operations and from rainwater or snowmelt, and frost. In order to minimize disturbance, construction traffic operating directly on the subgrade should be kept to an absolute minimum and the subgrade should be protected from below freezing temperatures.

11 May 25, Frost Protection Requirements for Spread Footing Foundations All exterior foundation elements and those in any unheated parts of the proposed building should be provided with at least 1.5 metres of earth cover for frost protection purposes. Isolated, unheated foundation elements adjacent to surfaces, which are cleared of snow cover during winter months should be provided with a minimum 1.8 metres of earth cover. Where less than the required depth of soil cover can be provided, the foundation elements should be protected from frost by using a combination of earth cover and extruded polystyrene rigid insulation. A typical frost protection insulation detail could be provided upon request, if required. Building Basement Foundation Walls and Drainage A conventional, perforated perimeter drain should be provided at founding level, leading by gravity flow to a sump or storm sewer. The drain should be installed at footing level and provided with a 150 millimetre thick surround of 20 millimetre minus crushed stone. The drain should be provided with a backflow preventer. It is considered that in view of the limited groundwater conditions observed at the boreholes, for foundations founded no lower than about 2.7 metres below the existing ground surface, the above perimeter drainage system should adequately handle any groundwater seepage to the basements. The native soils encountered at the site are considered to be frost susceptible. To prevent possible foundation frost jacking due to frost adhesion, the backfill against the foundation walls or isolated walls or piers should consist of free draining, non-frost susceptible material such as sand or sand and gravel meeting OPSS Granular B Type I grading requirements. Alternatively, foundations could be backfilled with native material in conjunction with the use of an approved proprietary drainage layer system such as "System Platon" against the foundation wall. It is pointed out that there is potential for possible frost jacking of the upper portion of some types of these drainage layer systems if frost susceptible material is used as backfill. This could be mitigated by backfilling the upper approximately 0.6 metres with non-frost susceptible granular material. Should native material be used for backfill, all cobbles and boulders in excess of 200 millimetres should be sorted from the backfill prior to placement.

12 May 25, Where the backfill material will ultimately support a pavement structure or walkway, it is suggested that the foundation wall backfill material be compacted in 250 millimetre thick lifts to 95 percent of the standard Proctor dry density value. In that case any native material proposed for foundation backfill should be inspected and approved by the geotechnical engineer. The basement foundation walls should be designed to resist the earth pressure, P, acting against the walls at any depth, h, calculated using the following equation. P = k 0 (γ h + q) Where: P = the pressure, at any depth, h, below the finished ground surface k 0 = earth pressure at-rest coefficient, 0.5 γ = unit weight of soil to be retained, estimated at 22 kn/m 3 q = surcharge load (kpa) above backfill material h = the depth, in metres, below the finished ground surface at which the pressure, P, is being computed This expression assumes that the water table would be maintained at the founding level by the above mentioned foundation perimeter drainage and backfill requirements. Where the backfill material will ultimately support a pavement structure or walkway, it is suggested that the foundation wall backfill material be compacted in 250 millimetre thick lifts to 95 percent of the standard Proctor dry density value. Building Basement Floor Slab It is expected that the proposed foundation will bear on undisturbed native glacial till or bedrock. For predictable performance of the any proposed concrete floor slab any existing fill material, topsoil and any otherwise deleterious material should be removed from below the proposed floor slab areas. The exposed native subgrade surface should then be inspected and approved by geotechnical personnel. If any service trenches are encountered, they should be dealt with as outlined above for the basement foundation design. Any soft or disturbed areas evident should be subexcavated and replaced with suitable engineered fill. The fill materials beneath the proposed concrete floor slab should consist of a minimum of 150 millimetre thickness of crushed stone meeting OPSS Granular A immediately beneath the concrete

13 May 25, floor slab followed by sand, or sand and gravel meeting the OPSS for Granular B Type I, or crushed stone meeting OPSS grading requirements for Granular B Type II, or other material approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. The fill materials should be compacted in maximum 300 millimetre thick lifts to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density. The concrete floor slab should be saw cut at regular intervals to minimize random cracking of the slab due to shrinkage of the concrete. The saw cut depth should be about one quarter of the thickness of the slab. The crack control cuts should be placed at a grid spacing not exceeding about 5 metres. Groundwater inflow from the native soils into the basement excavation during construction, if any should be handled by pumping from sumps within the excavations. If any part of the building basement will be unheated, the footings/grade beams, foundation walls and floor slabs will require protection from frost effects. Should the building basement not be heated we will be pleased to provide guidelines for suitable frost protection. Seismic Design for the Proposed Mixed Use Building For seismic design purposes, in accordance with the 2012 OBC Section , Table A., the site classification for seismic site response is Site Class C. Seismic Site Response Site Class Calculation Borehole 3 Layer Description Depth (m) d i (m) N(60) i (blows / 0.3m) d i /N i 1 USF Glacial Till Bedrock sum(d i /N(60) i ) d c /(sum(d i /N(60) i ) 99.9 Since N(60) = 99.9 > 50 (site class C) the seismic site response is Site Class C.

14 May 25, Potential for Soil Liquefaction Consideration for the potential for soil liquefaction was determined by considering the ratio between the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) and the cyclic stress ratio (CSR) for the soils between the proposed underside of footing level and the depth at which refusal to further advancement using standard penetration testing was attained. The CRR value was determined from a mathematical expression as determined by Rauch (1997) of the base curve obtained from Robertson and Fear (1996). The CSR was determined from Seed and Idriss (1971). It is considered that a soil with a normalized SPT of greater than 30 is non-liquefiable. It is also considered that a soil with a CRR/CSR ratio of greater than one is not liquefiable. As all of the normalized SPT values below the proposed bearing depth for the test holes advanced at the site are greater than 30, the subsurface soils are considered to be non-liquefiable. As this soil type is not prone to liquefaction, it is considered that no damage to the proposed building should occur due to liquefaction of the native subgrade under seismic conditions. SITE SERVICES Excavation The excavations for the site services will be carried out through fill, topsoil glacial till and possibly bedrock. The sides of the excavations in overburden materials should be sloped in accordance with the requirements in Ontario Regulation 213/91 under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act. In accordance with O.Reg 213/91, s. 226, the upper soils at this site can be considered to be Type 2 soil. As such, open cut excavations within the upper soil deposits at this site above the ground water level should be carried out with side slopes of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical, or flatter to within 1.2 metres of the bottom of the excavation. Where space constraints dictate, the excavation and backfilling operations should be carried out within a tightly fitting, braced steel trench box. Groundwater seepage into the excavations, if any, should be handled by pumping from sumps in the excavation. No material should be stored adjacent the top of excavation.

15 May 25, It is expected that bedrock will be encountered during excavating for site services. Small amounts of bedrock removal, if required, can most likely be carried out by hoe ramming and heavy excavating equipment. Where larger amounts of bedrock removal are required it may be more economically feasible to use drill and blasting techniques which should be carried out under the supervision of a blasting specialist engineer. Monitoring of the blasting should be carried out throughout the blasting period to ensure that the blasting meets the limiting vibration criteria established by the specialist engineer. Pre-blast condition surveys of nearby structures and existing utilities are essential. As extensive hoe ramming can also result in ground vibrations, it is considered a pre-construction survey of nearby structures be completed if hoe ramming is used as well. Pipe Bedding and Cover Materials It is suggested that the service pipe bedding material consist of at least 150 millimetres of granular material meeting OPSS requirements for Granular A. A provisional allowance should, however, be made for sub-excavation of any existing fill or disturbed material encountered at subgrade level. Granular material meeting OPSS specifications for Granular B Type II could be used as a subbedding material. The use of clear crushed stone as bedding or sub-bedding material should not be permitted. Cover material, from pipe spring line to at least 300 millimetres above the top of the pipe, should consist of granular material, such as OPSS Granular A or Granular B Type I (with a maximum particle size of 25 millimetres). The sub-bedding, bedding and cover materials should be compacted in maximum 200 millimetre thick lifts to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density using suitable vibratory compaction equipment. Trench Backfill The general backfilling procedures should be carried out in a manner that is compatible with the future use of the area above the service trenches.

16 May 25, In areas where the service trench will be located below or in close proximity to existing or future pavement areas, acceptable native materials should be used as backfill between the pavement subgrade level and the depth of seasonal frost penetration (i.e. 1.8 metres below finished grade) in order to reduce the potential for differential frost heaving between the area over the trench and the adjacent section of roadway. Where native backfill is used, it should match the native materials exposed on the trench walls. Some of the native materials from the lower part of the trench excavations may be wet of optimum for compaction. Depending on the weather conditions encountered during construction, some drying of materials and/or recompaction may be required. Any wet materials that cannot be compacted to the required density should either be wasted from the site or should be used outside of existing or future roadway areas. Backfill below the zone of seasonal frost penetration could consist of either acceptable native material or imported granular material conforming to OPSS Granular A or Granular B Type I or Type II. To minimize future settlement of the backfill and achieve an acceptable subgrade for the parking areas, sidewalks, etc., the trench should be compacted in maximum 300 millimetre thick lifts to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density. The specified density may be reduced to 90 percent where the trench backfill is not located or in close proximity to existing or future roadways, driveways, sidewalks, or any other type of permanent structure. PARKING LOT PAVEMENTS Subgrade Preparation Based on the results of the boreholes, the subsurface conditions in the access roadway and parking areas consist of a thin layer of asphaltic concrete followed by about 300 millimetres of granular crushed stone overlying fill materials and topsoil. For predictable performance of the pavement structures, it is considered that all of the asphaltic concrete, granular materials, fill materials and topsoil will have to be removed in preparation for pavement construction at this site. It is considered that any granular crushed stone fill material that is free of topsoil or organic debris may be stockpiled and upon approval by the engineer used to raise the subgrade of the access roadway and parking areas to the proposed underside of access roadway and subbase elevation of the parking lot.

17 May 25, Once removed, the exposed sub-grade should be inspected and approved by geotechnical personnel and any soft areas evident should be sub-excavated and replaced with suitable earth borrow or granular crushed stone approved by the geotechnical engineer. The sub-grade should be shaped and crowned to promote drainage of the roadway area granular. Following approval of the preparation of the sub-grade, the pavement granulars may be placed. For any areas of the site that require the sub-grade to be raised to proposed roadway area subgrade level, the material used should consist of OPSS select sub-grade material or OPSS Granular B Type I or Type II. Materials used for raising the sub-grade to proposed roadway area sub-grade level should be placed in maximum 300 millimetre thick loose lifts and be compacted to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density using suitable compaction equipment. For pavement areas subject to cars and light trucks the pavement should consist of: 50 millimetres of hot mix asphaltic concrete (HL3) over 150 millimetres of OPSS Granular A base over 300 millimetres of OPSS Granular B, Type II subbase (50 or 100 millimetre minus crushed stone) Performance grade PG asphaltic concrete should be specified. Compaction of the granular pavement materials should be carried out in maximum 300 millimetre thick loose lifts to 100 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density value using suitable vibratory compaction equipment. The above pavement structures will be adequate on an acceptable sub-grade, that is, one where any roadway fill and service trench backfill has been adequately compacted. If the roadway subgrade is disturbed or wetted due to construction operations or precipitation, the granular thicknesses given above may not be adequate and it may be necessary to increase the thickness of the Granular B Type II subbase and/or incorporate a non-woven geotextile separator between the roadway sub-grade surface and the granular sub-base material.

18 May 25, CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS It is suggested that the final design drawings for the project, including the proposed site grading plan, be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer to ensure that the guidelines provided in this report have been interpreted as intended. The engagement of the services of the geotechnical consultant during construction is recommended to confirm that the subsurface conditions throughout the proposed development do not materially differ from those given in the report and that the construction activities do not adversely affect the intent of the design. All footing areas and any engineered fill areas for the proposed multi-use building should be inspected by Kollaard Associates Inc. to ensure that a suitable subgrade has been reached and properly prepared. The placing and compaction of any granular materials beneath the foundations should be inspected to ensure that the materials used conform to the grading and compaction specifications. The subgrade for the site services, access roadway and parking areas should be inspected and approved by geotechnical personnel. In situ density testing should be carried out on the service pipe bedding and backfill and the pavement granular materials to ensure the materials meet the specifications from a compaction point of view. The native silty clay deposits within the glacial till at this site will be sensitive to disturbance from construction operations, from rainwater or snow melt, and frost. In order to minimize disturbance, construction traffic operating directly on the subgrade should be kept to an absolute minimum and the subgrade should be protected from below freezing temperatures.

19 May 25, We trust this report provides sufficient information for your present purposes. If you have any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further services to you, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Regards, Kollaard Associates Inc. May Dean Tataryn, B.E.S., EP. Steve DeWit, P.Eng. Attachments: Record of Boreholes Figures 1 and 2 Laboratory Test Results for Chemical Properties Laboratory Test Results for Physical Properties Stantec Laboratory Test Results for Soils

20 RECORD OF BOREHOLE BH1 PROJECT: Proposed Mixed Use Development PROJECT NUMBER: CLIENT: Takyan Consulting and Development Inc. DATE OF BORING: May 5, 2015 LOCATION:, Ottawa, Ontario PENETRATION TEST HAMMER: 63.5kg, Drop, 0.76mm SHEET 1 of 1 DATUM: Geodetic DEPTH SCALE (meters) SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH (M) SAMPLES NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/0.3m UNDIST. SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa REM. SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST blows/300 mm ADDITIONAL LAB TESTING PIEZOMETER OR STANDPIPE INSTALLATION 0 Ground Surface ASPHALTIC CONCRETE Grey crushed stone, some topsoil (FILL) 1 1 SS Compact to dense yellow brown silty sand, some gravel, cobbles and boulders, trace clay (GLACIAL TILL) BLACK SHALE Refusal in BLACK SHALE SS SS SS Water measured in borehole on May 5, 2015 at about 2.0 metres below existing ground surface DEPTH SCALE: 1 to 50 LOGGED: DT BORING METHOD: Power Auger AUGER TYPE: 200 mm Hollow Stem CHECKED: DT

21 RECORD OF BOREHOLE BH2 PROJECT: Proposed Mixed Use Development PROJECT NUMBER: CLIENT: Takyan Consulting and Development Inc. DATE OF BORING: May 5, 2015 LOCATION:, Ottawa, Ontario PENETRATION TEST HAMMER: 63.5kg, Drop, 0.76mm SHEET 1 of 1 DATUM: Geodetic DEPTH SCALE (meters) SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH (M) SAMPLES NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/0.3m UNDIST. SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa REM. SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST blows/300 mm ADDITIONAL LAB TESTING PIEZOMETER OR STANDPIPE INSTALLATION 0 Ground Surface ASPHALTIC CONCRETE Grey crushed stone, some topsoil, brick and concrete debris (FILL) 1 1 SS 5 2 BLACK SHALE SS SS SS Borehole observed to be dry at time of drilling, May 5, End of Borehole, refusal in BLACK SHALE DEPTH SCALE: 1 to 50 LOGGED: DT BORING METHOD: Power Auger AUGER TYPE: 200 mm Hollow Stem CHECKED: DT

22 KEY PLAN FIGURE 1 North Approximate Site NOT TO SCALE Project No Date May 2015

23

24 May 25, 2015, Laboratory Test Results for Chemical Properties

25 EXOVA ENVIRONMENTAL ONTARIO Certificate of Analysis Client: Kollaard Associates Inc. 210 Prescott St., Box 189 Kemptville, ON K0G 1J0 Attention: Mr. Dean Tataryn PO#: Invoice to: Kollaard Associates Inc. Report Number: Date Submitted: Date Reported: Project: and COC #: Lab I.D. Sample Matrix Sample Type Sampling Date Sample I.D. Group Analyte MRL Units Guideline Agri. - Soil ph 2.0 General Chemistry Cl % Electrical Conductivity 0.05 ms/cm Resistivity 1 ohm-cm SO % Soil BH SS Soil BH Guideline = * = Guideline Exceedence MRL = Method Reporting Limit, AO = Aesthetic Objective, OG = Operational Guideline, MAC = All analysis completed in Ottawa, Ontario (unless otherwise indicated by ** which indicates analysis was completed in Mississauga, Ontario). Results relate only to the parameters tested on the samples submitted. Maximum Acceptable Concentration, IMAC = Interim Maximum Acceptable Concentration, STD = Standard, PWQO = Provincial Water Quality Guideline, IPWQO = Interim Provincial Water Quality Objective, TDR = Typical Desired Range Methods references and/or additional QA/QC information available on request. 146 Colonnade Rd. Unit 8, Ottawa, ON K2E 7Y1 Page 2 of 3

26 May 25, 2015, Laboratory Test Results for Physical Properties

27